Terminal terminated so Move On

Jul 4, 2008

Save Our Spit Alliance (SOSA) has described the latest cruise terminal development proposal for the Broadwater as yet another land grab for commercial gain - and has called upon developers to STOP pushing for cruise ship access via the Seaway.

The cruise terminal component of this latest proposal - attributed to architect Desmond Brooks (Gold Coast Bulletin[1] ) - is small relative to the 350 condominiums and other intense commercial development which is to dominate the fantasy dredged-up land mass, immediately adjacent to Southport.

"If Mr. Brooks is accurately quoted in saying his design would avoid the environmental protests which canned the previous terminal, then he is wrong. This cruise terminal location is every bit as flawed as the previous proposal for The Spit - so we can agree with Mr Brooks only insofar as he says that The Spit was totally the wrong location. But his new proposal is no better from an environmental, planning, social and economic angle and should go the same way. In the rubbish bin," said Kate Mathews Hunt, Acting SOSA President.

"Nothing proposed resolves the intractable cost and technical - environmental issues associated with significant and ongoing dredging of the Seaway required for cruise ships - and this proposal is totally dependant upon it and presumably some swing basin to be dredged north of WaveBreak Island" said Lois Levy, Gecko's SOSA Rep. "It's the same idea rehashed and has all the same fatal flaws." SOSA also points to the probability the plan would founder under a full EIS which would include hydrology and environmental investigation as well as planning review for the condominiums, shops, theme park, yacht club and so on - not to mention economic viability concerns.

GCB assertions of this project ýsolving the sandbar problemý and offering "...a regularly dredged and maintained Broadwater, all paid for privately" seem to be a simplistic attempt to use the current dredging concerns to justify a commercial development. The reality is that Gold Coasters and tax payers would be the patsy down the track when no-one wants to pay for the enormous ongoing dredging costs required to maintain a white elephant cruise terminal within the Broadwater. And of course, dredging to meet the localised requirements of this development is NOT going to solve the dredging issues of all recreational users of the Broadwater - which requires an overall plan and strategy, not piecemeal developments.

SOSA has consistently exposed the technical, scientific and environmental reasons why the Seaway is NOT a safe or appropriate passage for a cruise ship. Premier Bligh and Deputy Premier Lucas have also cited similar reasons after reviewing the publicly-released draft EIS, the former stating that (inter alia) the economics did not ýstack upý and more recently, Deputy Premier Paul Lucas stated that there were also serious hydrology issues. In plain terms, this means a real risk of flooding.

The Bulletin has consistently pushed for a terminal via The Seaway (or elsewhere) and after another series of articles and editorials pushing that line, here they go again. Itýs time the GCB caught up - 28,000 people signed petitions against cruise ships in The Seaway.